Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm setting up a FreeNAS server with the following 3 storage drives

  • 2 80 GB drives
  • 1 40 GB Drive

I choose ZFS with RAIDZ since it seemed like the only free RAID that supported multiple disks. However when I setup FreeNAS I was surprised that I only had 76 GB of usable space. Where did the other 124 GB go?

What am I missing here? Isn't ZFS supposed to allow you to use multi-size disks and still have redundancy? How can I configure FreeNAS (I would prefer to stay away from the command line, but will go there if its absolutely necessary) to give me the most storage with protection?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 7 down vote accepted

A RAID-Z group within a ZFS pool will always lock the size to the smallest disk within the pool. So, currently, you have what is essentially a RAID-Z of 3x 40GB drives. One disk worth is dedicated to parity bits, so you've got 2x 40GB, which is 76.29 GiB.

The way that you can work around this limitation is by not using RAID-Z at all. ZFS also lets you independently set that data should be stored in at least X locations throughout the pool, preferring different disks for the extra copies when possible. Add each disk to the pool separately, then run zfs set copies=2 poolname; this will direct ZFS to store all data in at least two places.

share|improve this answer
    
I recreated the volume (selected stripped), then ran your command, but the size of the volume doesn't change. Should it since its duplicating the data? –  TheLQ Mar 28 '11 at 23:19
1  
You probably don't want striped, as Shane says "add each disk to the pool separately". The volume should then be 40+(80*2)GB in size. When you write, it will write 2 copies, meaning that you don't see the space available change, but your used space grows twice as fast (write 1GB, the allocated space shows 2GB). That's the unfortunate thing, a RAIDZ would have only increased consumption by 50% in a 3 drive array. –  Sean Reifschneider Mar 28 '11 at 23:57
    
@Sean Ah, okay. Added it, ran the command, and saw the effects with dd. For a temporary solution this works just fine. Long term though I'm probably going to scrounge around for more hds and/or a better system –  TheLQ Mar 29 '11 at 0:47
2  
You could also have partitioned the 80GB drives, and made a RAIDZ out of 40GB partitions; then make a mirror out of the remaining space on the two 80GB drives. better HDs clearly a better solution. –  Dan Pritts Sep 7 '12 at 0:24
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.